See Targeting

7/24/2019 See Targeting

1/18

AC 2012-3395: DESIGN FOR THE OTHER 90% AND APPROPRIATETECHNOLOGY: THE LEGACIES OF PAUL POLAK AND E.F. SCHU-MACHER

Lindsey Anne Nelson, Purdue University, West Lafayette

Lindsey Nelson is a doctoral student in engineering education. She has a B.S. in mechanical engineer-

ing from Boston University and a M.A. in poverty and development from the Institute of Development

Studies housed at the University of Sussex in England. Her research interests include sustainable de-

sign, engineering design methodologies, the publics understanding of engineering, poverty mitigation,

global participation, and engineering education. She is a passionate advocate for inclusive and socially

just engineering professional practice.

cAmerican Society for Engineering Education, 2012


2/18

Design for the Other 90% and Appropriate Technology:

The Legacies of Paul Polak and E.F. Schumacher

Introduction

Solving problems that differentially affect people living in poverty has always intrigued some

engineers. Two authors have had significant influence on why and how engineers might engagewith problems of poverty: E.F. Schumacher and Paul Polak. While neither of these two men areengineers, they bring perspectives on global technological systems that challenge conventional

engineering practices. Both men use word and deed to articulate visions of technological systemsthat improve the lives of people living in poverty.

E.F. Schumacher, an economist, critically observed modern industrialization created markedseparation between urban and rural areas in developing countries.

1He called for the development

of intermediate technologies to improve the quality of rural life. For Schumacher, soundtechnological development required conserving fossil fuels, respecting the tolerance levels of

nature, and affirming human dignity. Schumachers associates helped him establish the

Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG) in 1966. The Appropriate Technologymovement grew out of a groundswell of interest to develop these intermediate technologies.

2

Development professionals, environmental activists, and social activists gravitated towards

Schumachers broad message.

Paul Polak, a psychologist, identified the limitations of expecting charitable donations andtraditional business models to lift people out of poverty.

3He called for the development of

radically affordable technologies to increase the incomes of people living in poverty.4His

experience in marketing and distributing pumps to smallholder farmers in Bangladesh lead him

to found International Development Enterprises (IDE) in 1981. IDE relies on market-led forcesto create viable technologies. IDE searches for existing consumer demand, designs to specific

affordable price targets, and develops innovative last-mile supply chains to deliver products tomarket. For Polak, developing radically affordable products requires a design revolution.

Design for the Other 90 Percent5serves as a rallying call for designers attempting to develop

solutions for problems that differentially affect people living in poverty.

E.F. Schumacher Paul Polak

Professional training Economics Psychology

Key book Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics

as if People Mattered

Out of Poverty: What Works when

Traditional Approaches Fail

Technological approach Appropriate technology

Intermediate technology

Design for the other 90%

Radically affordable technology

Organization Founded as Intermediate Technology

Development Group (ITDG), nowPractical Action

International Development Enterprises

(IDE)

Principal design

objectives

Delivering a higher quality of life to

people living in rural areas

Increasing the incomes of people living

in poverty

Engineering educators increasingly look to global problems to increase student understanding the

social impacts of engineering solutions.6-10

Several global service-learning programs have beenorganized to teach engineering students about appropriate technology (such as Peace Corps

Masters International Programs at Michigan Tech and MIT D-Lab) or design for the other 90


3/18

percent (such as Stanford UniversityEntrepreneurial Design for Extreme Affordability).Furthermore, engineers are working to change the conversation so incoming engineering students

embrace messages that engineers make a world of difference and engineering is essential toour health, happiness, and safety.

11Effectively organizing engineering education around global

problems requires taking greater notice of Schumachers and Polaks exhortations.

This paper explores Schumachers and Polaks legacies on engineering practices in developingcountries and in engineering education. ITDG, through reorganization as Practical Action, and

IDE remain vibrant organizations working in marginalized communities decades after theirfounding. This paper critically asks two questions:

1) How does each organization bring its founders vision to various communities?

2) What lessons can engineering educators designing service-learning programs learn

from both organizations?

I begin by introducing the social construction of technology and multimodal discourse analysisas appropriate theoretical frameworks and research methodologies for my research questions.

Next I explore Schumachers and Polaks legacies in how each organization defines poverty,

conducts projects, understands community change, and educates the global public. Beforeconcluding, I identify specific lessons for engineering educators designing service-learningprograms. Additionally, any existing design organization or service-learning program can use themethodology of this paper to critique their existing efforts.

Theoretical Framework

Exploring design legacies requires theoretical frameworks suited to extended time intervals. The

social construction of technology(SCOT) provides a comprehensive theoretical frame to analyzeengineering design as innovation practices construct technologies. SCOT assumes every

technology is deeply embedded in a continual (re)construction of the world.12

This frameworkacknowledges the complex inter-workings in sociotechnical systems. Political priorities,

economic conditions, social networks, ecological demands, worldviews, cognitive frames, andtechnical knowledge interact to constrain, enable, empower, and create opportunities for

technological innovation.13-17Further, SCOT studies the complexity of innovation systems byidentifying both human and nonhuman actors.

18, 19My analysis extends past single projects to

investigate the structural rules of engagement20

for each organization. Organizations use variousforms of stakeholder engagement to support both organizational learning.

21Organizational

learning dynamics influence innovation processes22, 23

and attitudes towards social change.24

Thispaper uses multimodal discourse analysis to illuminate organizational innovation processes.

21

Multimodal Discourse Analysis

This paper employs multimodal discourse analysisto explore how each organization materializesits design ethos within various communities. Both organizations have a long history. Key

monographs, countless invited talks, various organizational roundtables, and exhibitionsdedicated to organizational design principles shape a complex discourse space.Multimodal

discourse analysisdeals with this complexity by integrating many different communicationforms. The research uses multimodal discourse analysis to distill an organizations message. The

rigor of multimodal discourse analysis stems from careful reading of the source text, testinginterpretations through directly related texts, and situating interpretations in related scholarly

literature.25-29This study relies on publically available documents.


4/18

My data comes principally from organizational artifacts disseminated through the internet. These

artifacts include web pages, edited videos, public speeches, organization-authored editorials,strategy documents, organizational social media interactions, and external news reports in

various media. I take care to provide media-sensitive readings of each artifact discussed.25, 26, 29

The large dataset permits usingprocess tracingwithin each case study.

30-32

Process tracingconcerns internal validity and gathers multiple observations to support significant conclusions.My analysis incorporates both external commentary on an organizations activities and internal

documentation of the same activities. I analyze diverse projects in order to claims about theorganization as a whole.23To help readers navigate the source data, I use footnotes extensively.

To capture how each organization brings its founders vision to various communities, I started

with organizational homepages. I then navigated various web routes to learn more about featureddesigns. I focused on projects where the organizations intentionally invite sustained involvement

from community members. Next, I triangulated my observations with additional externallygenerated media coverage and organizational web pages discussing other designs, exploring

referenced collaborations where applicable. To incorporate first-person perspectives within theorganizations, I read blogs written by a wide range of internal authors.

This study does not incorporate interviews with key stakeholders in the innovation process.

While interviews could be used in conjunction with multimodal discourse analysis, the methoddoes not require incorporating interviews. Recognizing the power of first-person accounts, this

desk-based study incorporates first-person perspectives found in designers written reflections.This archival strategy permits the researcher to consider projects across space and time.

Reviewing documentation produced five years ago provides different insights than askingsomeone to reflect on the same events. Similarly, critical analysis of project documentation

permits comparing vastly different geographical and team contexts. Undoubtedly a differentappreciation of design could be gained from an ethnographic approach. Yet, organizations

develop skills of reflective practice through regularly reviewing old projects to learn from pastmistakes. Because of reflective practices disruptive powers, organizations can use reflective

practice to shift away from the habits of normal professionalism that situate power and agencyamongst professionals rather than local communities.

33

The Legacy of Two Visionaries

Schumacher and Polak promulgated new visions for technological systems. Schumachercontended that the modern industrial system consumed three core substances: fossil fuels, thetolerance margins of nature, and the human substance.

1Intermediate technology envisioned a

more human industrial system that considered the realities of people living in poverty. Thesetechnologies enabled more sustainable rural livelihoods and exposed urban-rural discrepancies.

Polak argued the people living in poverty cannot access markets in the modern industrial system,noting billions of people have never seen a Wal-Mart.

4Polak challenged corporations to develop

radically affordable products for emerging consumer markets. Affordable technology offered anew vision for technological systems by challenging designers to develop products that people

living in poverty actually need.3For Polak, an innovation can be sustainable if and only if people

living in poverty purchase the product or service directly. Schumacher emphasized unequal

technological distribution while Polak highlighted various market failures in emerging markets.


5/18

Contemporary documents from ITDG show how the organization embodies Schumachers

vision. In 2005, ITDG changed its name to Practical Action to communicate the organizationsmission and approach more clearly.

aPractical Action straps Technology challenging poverty

to core communications, recognizing that technology can sustain, stabilize, and empower

livelihood strategies of people living in poverty.

b

The design of high-gloss documentscommunicating the organizations storycand strategic plans of 2007 to 2012

dreflect attempts to

equip the worlds poorest people. Every page has pictures of local people in their communities.

Furthermore, these pictures nearly always show people with tools in hand, pursuing a rurallivelihood, or otherwise in a state of activity. The 2007 Strategic Plan connects Practical Actions

history to Schumacher, citing his foresight regarding climate change, inequality, and the need toput technology to work for the worlds poorest. Notably, Practical Actions strategy involves

using technology to connect the voices of poor farmers to international summits regardingclimate change. Connecting the most vulnerable poor to global economic powers lay at the heart

of Practical Actions concern for technological justice. As climate change heads an agenda ofglobal concern, Practical Action hopes to model climate-proofed development by building

resilient livelihoods through grant-funded community infrastructure projects.

Contemporary documents from IDE show how the organization embodies Polaks vision. IDEcommunicates its mission in a dynamic slideshow located on the organizations homepage.

e

Short sentences in boxes appear with images of smallholder farmers. IDE views income as abasic human right because lack of money restricts access to food and water.

fTo bridge the gap

between designers and people living in poverty, IDE treats smallholder farmers as customers. Bydeveloping market-based solutions, IDE designers help people exit poverty. In IDEs 2012

Innovation Portfolio, the editors focus on IDEs use of technology and discuss IDEs expansioninto West Africa and Latin America. The editors present IDE as an innovator in human-centered

design solving vexing problems of economic water scarcity. IDE expands as it builds onprevious success in applying the IDE model and uses state-of-the-art technologies like GIS to

improve designs. IDE catalyzes markets through developing affordable technologies, connectingsuppliers with markets, and training villagers in IDE techniques.

gIDE attracts limited investment

to develop sustainable, market-led solutions that help people exit poverty.

E.F. Schumacher

ITDG - Practical Action

Paul Polak

IDE

Contemporary strategy Reducing vulnerability to climate

change

Developing market-led solutions for

people in poverty

Contemporary focus Active rural communities Farmers accessing water

Identifying communities Concentrations of inequality Potentially viable markets

aPractical Action is the new name for ITDG http://practicalaction.org/history?id=practicalactionbTechnology Challenging Poverty http://practicalaction.org/technologychallengingpoverty

c34. Practical Action. Practical Action: Our Story. Rugby: Practical Action; 2010.

d35. Practical Action. People and Technology: Transforming Lives, Practical Action Group Strategy 2007-

2012. Rugby: Practical Action; 2007.eIDE, Our Story, Mission: http://www.ideorg.org/OurStory/Mission.aspx

fInternational Development Enterprises (2011)IDE: Cultivating Potentialavailable at

http://www.ideorg.org/IDE/Docs/Download.aspx?docid=1026gIDE,Introduction to IDE. http://www.ideorg.org/OurStory/iDE_general_info.pdf


6/18

While both Practical Action and IDE attempt to improve the lives of people living in poverty,these organizations have very different visions. Practical Action has strongly retained

Schumachers concerns for inequality. Because Practical Action lobbies expressly aroundclimate change, the charity continually discusses interconnections between the developed and

developing world. IDE employs a much more targeted approach, looking at how people living in

poverty can earn more money. The IDE model involves training people to capitalize onidentified market opportunities. IDE focuses on developing technologies that enable smallholderfarmers to get more money out of small plots of land. IDE has strongly retained Polaks vision

for sustainable business creation. These different missions could lead to markedly differentstrategies when working in poor communities.

The Legacy of Working With Smallholder Farmers

Both IDE and Practical Action have a legacy of working with smallholder farmers. IDE grew out

of Polaks success selling treadle pumps and small-scale drip irrigation systems to farmers livingin poverty. These systems enabled farmers to increase their annual income by selling off-season

vegetables.3Schumacher articulated that smallholder farmers lacked technologies to add value to

their crops.

1

ITDG started by focusing on rural livelihoods, developing tools for post-harvestagricultural processing.34

Recently, both IDE and Practical Action have completed a project thatprovided smallholder farmers with treadle pumps. To understand how these organizations share

their founders vision with marginalized communities, I analyze video project reports andsupporting project documentation.

Data

IDEs home page featured a 3min13sec video storyhdescribing how Veronica, a Zambian

farmer, built a house using income from tomatoes. The video opens with footage of Veronica

walking through her small plot of land while Veronica uses a Zambian dialect to tell us sheparticipates in IDEs Rural Prosperity Initiative (RPI) and placed a treadle pump on her land.

Between 0min52sec and 0min58sec, Veronica says that her income from her first tomato cropwas 1330USD while the camera shows her reviewing business documents. At 1min31sec, the

setting of the video shifts to a central business region, characterized by cars and various shops.Additionally, at 1min48sec Veronica speaks in accented English when she explains, The reason

I plant tomatoes, peppers, eggplant, and other vegetables is because these are high income cropsthat IDE identified with its tranings and market identifications. We see various scenes of

Veronica having her produce weighed and purchased complete with two shots of an Englishlanguage receipt at 1min58sec and at 2min20sec. At 2min30sec, the video returns to Veronica in

front of her house, thanking IDE for its work with women as she can now help her husband withthe household.

Practical Actions website has a devoted media center with a video section. One of their featured

videosiruns 3min21sec and describes treadle pumps in Nepal. We meet Phool Kumari on hertreadle pump as the narrator introduces her as a woman who claims that vegetable farming can

elevate ones social life. In the first 38 seconds, the narrator sketches that Phool previouslystruggled to feed her family but the 20,000 rupees per season generated by vegetable farming

hIDE Visits Veronicas Zambian Farm, uploaded 9 Mar 2010, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvoW8qVdcAc

iTreadle Pumps in Nepal, A Story of Phool Kumari, uploaded 18 May 2009,

http://practicalaction.org/video/view/treadlepump.


7/18

enable her to send her children and sister-in-law to school. We survey Phools small farm, nowequipped with a working hand pump and a treadle pump. At 0min39sec, Phool tells her story inNepalese. Phool describes how her family used to earn a living through selling logs or wagedlabor but now the project has given us land to farm and provided trainings on how to growvegetables. The video editors present Phools story as a composite of Phool speaking to camera

against video captures of garden scenes. At 2min12sec, Phool discusses the treadle pumpexplicitly saying, The treadle pump was a new thing to us before, we didnt know how it wouldwork. But the project came along and they established this treadle pump, they taught us how touse the pump and now it is easy for everyone to use it. Between 2min35sec and 2min46sec, wesee Phool and her family in front of a new brick-constructed home. The video closes with Phoolsaying she has achieved much with the projects support and identifying the additional things shecould do with continuing support.

Analysis

At first glance, the two projects appear to have a common technological system: poor mothers(users) receive a treadle pump (tool) to irrigate vegetable farms (expertise). This technological

system helped both women move their families out of poverty. Both videos maintain men in thebackground, focusing on the womans story. However, several key differences emerge. Veronicain Zambia made an action plan for her garden (0min37sec) whereas Phool received land from theproject (1min3sec). Additionally, Phool received training on how to grow vegetables (1min6sec)while Veronica connected with a small business that provides farmers with a better price than theopen market (1min45sec). The two organizations also report income differently with IDEfavoring using US currency ($1330) while Practical Action reports 20,000-25,000 NR.Furthermore, we know Veronica sells her crops to a business in a more urban area whereas wedo not know where Phool sells her crops. Looking at how these organizations mounted thesesuccess stories, we suspect the two organizations have different strategies for working withinmarginalized communities.

Core project documents support the claim that the two organizations have different strategies forworking within marginalized communities. Practical Actions project carries the name:Improving livelihoods security of socially-excluded communities in Nepal (ILISSCON).ILISSCONjtargets food insecure and socio-economically marginalised households (HHs)particularly, dalits, ethnic nationalities, women headed HHs and landless or HHs having 1-1.5kaththas (500 sq metres) of land. These attributes strongly indicate Practical Action works withthe vulnerablepoor. The project organizes beneficiaries into various groups to provide supportfor leasehold farming. Using FM radio messages and improved transportation structure,ILISSCON connects farmers to existing markets. Through ILISSCON, Practical Actionaddresses distribution of land, information, and infrastructure while encouraging farmers to usetreadle pumps. Conversely, IDE Zambia celebrates a successful market launch of an IDEbranded pump to serve smallholder farmers.kMarket forces dominate as both IDE and Veronicalaunch successful enterprises. RPI provides affordable irrigation schemes to increase income,improving food securitylthrough (economic) access to that food. Additionally, RPI includesgender-specific Voice of Customer surveys to determine the necessity and value of gender-

jThis project is detailed at http://practicalaction.org/livelihoods_IA12900002NEP.kDetails of the product launch available at http://www.ideorg.org/OurResults/SuccessStories/Mosi.aspx.lIDE, Our Method, Food Security http://www.ideorg.org/OurMethod/FoodSecurity.aspx


8/18

appropriate micro irrigation technologies and/or adaptations.m

Veronica not only could purchaseIDEs treadle pump but she also had a range of assets (land holdings, farming knowledge,

existing market participation, English literacy) that facilitated her participation in RPI. IDEproject officers gave Veronica key information about high-value crops. Through RPI, IDE

increases farmer income through affordabletools and marketawareness. These differences

suggest that Practical Action targets families living far below the poverty line while IDE focuseson families living at the poverty line. Many development professionals use assets as a proxy toindicate both poverty and vulnerability.

36-39

E.F. Schumacher


Paul Polak

IDE

Project focus Reducing vulnerability of marginalized

populations

Leveraging assets already held by people

living in poverty

Project approach Grant-funded initiatives that transfer

technology

Developing affordable tools and increasing

market awareness

When engineers design projects to help alleviate poverty, the engineers need to understand howtechnical innovations operate in society. Engineers would do well to remember that better-off

households often take risks with new technologies.28, 40-44Development professionals tend tounderestimate the risks associated with technological adoption, focusing on large external risks

such as political turmoil and famine. In their review of projects supported by the GatesFoundation, researchers report, almost all projects explicitly or implicitly assuming that their

stated objective and theory of change will have a presumed positive impact in reducing the risksfarmers face and the investments required for technology adoption are not widely

acknowledged as a potential increase in financial risk for the farmer.44

Engineers need toremember that farmers encounter output, financial, and market risk when adopting new

technologies. The nature of context-specific risk requires a systems approach capable ofacknowledging local complexity.

45, 46In the next section, I discuss how IDE and Practical Action

attempt to bring change to communities.

The Legacy of Changing Communities

IDE and Practical Action conceptualize communities differently. Polak argued only functional

markets can deliver sustainable development to people living in poverty because internationalcharity efforts fail. Therefore, IDE models how specific markets operate in communities. IDE

assumes customers will purchase various tools that improve a households quality of life.Conversely, Schumacher highlighted gaps between urban and rural economies. Consequently,

Practical Action considers how structural features create vulnerabilities in marginalizedcommunities. Practical Action begins by looking at large-scale problems encountered within

various communities. The conceptual differences between the approaches can lead to animositybetween organizations.

IDE views people in poverty as consumers making rational business choices. Polak3exhorts

designers to talk to the people who have the problem and listen to what they say and continueto learn from your customers. Al Doerksen,

nIDEs Chief Executive Director, and Roberts

o

mIDE, Our Method, Gender http://www.ideorg.org/OurMethod/Gender.aspx

nAl Doerksen, IDE has no beneficiaries 29 June 2010 http://blog.ideorg.org/2010/06/29/ide-has-no-beneficiaries/oMichael Roberts, Success is in the toilet 20 Jan 2011 http://blog.ideorg.org/2011/01/20/success-its-in-the-toilet/


9/18

agree that IDE should treat people living in poverty as customers, not as recipients of charity.Roberts

pexplains, If I have to convince someone to purchase something, then my success is

absolutely dependent on listening to them, understanding them, and responding to their highestpriority needs. However, IDEs standard market-research methods

47may limit the ability to

listen to actual people. The methods center on smallholder farms as IDEqasserts, more than 70

percent of the world's poorest people are small scale farmers. The focus on smallholderfarmers hides the many diversities present among people living in poverty who rely on complexlivelihood strategies.

36, 37, 48, 49Additionally, IDE exhorts farmers to pursue off-season irrigation

technologies. IDE appears to focus on customers who have a problem IDE wants to solve.

Where possible, IDE builds local manufacturing capacity. For instance, IDE Cambodia has beensuccessful at stimulating latrine production businesses. The World Bank awarded IDE Cambodia

with a sanitation grant to help Cambodia achieve development goals.rIDE designers partneredwith a design consultant to create an integrated business model using specialized molds to

streamline production processes. An aggressive marketing campaign led by IDE has sold over10,000 latrines.

sTo expand farming production, IDE bundles training for smallholder farmers

with their agricultural technologies. IDEs training focus extends to other contexts including toagricultural input sellers in Cambodia, vegetable farmers in Zambia,tcoffee farmers in

Honduras,uand well diggers in Ethiopia.

vIDE provides knowledge-based support to participants

leveraging their own assets to create viable businesses. However, relying on market forces to

support entrepreneurship can limit participation to the better-off members in communities.44

Conversely, Practical Action addresses structures of poverty within marginalized communitieswith a current campaign to improve energy access. The campaign highlights vulnerabilities

created when people lack reliable electricity such as unsafe living conditionswand poor

educational attainment.xThis rights-based campaign encourages people to make the call to

secure energy for all.yAdditionally, Practical Action partners with existing local organizations

to help specific communities secure energy access and meet other basic needs. For instance,

Practical Action installed micro-hydropower and wind power schemes that provide electricity inisolated areas of Peru, Nepal, and Kenya. Through the Practical Answers database,zPractical

Action provides direct technical support to communities across a wide range of technologies.

pMichael Roberts, Creating value at farm level 24 Aug 2010 http://blog.ideorg.org/2010/08/24/creating-value-at-

farm-level/qIDE, Our Method, Water, www.ideorg.org/OurMethod/Water.aspx

rIDEs Sanitation Marketing Project Honored by World Toilet Organization, accessed at http://www.ide-

cambodia.org/download/WTO_Hall_of_Fame_Press_Release.pdfsIDE Shit Happens.Business Happens. Impact, accessed 9 February 2012 http://www.makingsanitationeasy.com/

tVeronica builds a house with tomatoes, accessed 3 September 2011

http://www.ideorg.org/OurResults/SuccessStories/Veronica.aspxuMicro-irrigation brings life changing alternatives to Hondurans, accessed 3 September 2011

http://www.ideorg.org/OurResults/SuccessStories/Honduras.aspxvIDE, Our Results, Success Stories, Water and Work, accessed 3 September 2011

http://www.ideorg.org/OurResults/SuccessStories/WaterAndWork.aspxwSmoke: Killer in the Kitchen (Kenya) uploaded 12 September 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDBOSA7rvjMxAccess to Energy Fighting Poverty uploaded 20 August 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JHs2y9x-pw

yEnergy for Poverty Reduction accessed 3 September 2011 www.practicalaction.org/energyzPractical Answers, accessed 3 September 2011 http://practicalaction.org/practicalanswers/


10/18

Both IDE and Practical Action harness the energy of designers to solve problems that affect

people living in poverty. Yet their different approaches can lead to animosity between theorganizations. IDE is a newer charity that seeks to distance itself from Practical Actions

approach. Specifically, Polakaa

writes that the appropriate technology movement died

peacefully in its sleep because designers failed to bring products to market. In calling for adesign revolution for the other 90 percent, Polak identifies a broad client base for engineersdesigning for poverty alleviation.

3, 4The phrase originates in appropriate technologies and

describes the worlds poor as the 90% of the population that has little or no access to most ofthe products and services many of us take for granted.5However, this phrase has no relevance

in the international development community, which focuses on reducing poverty andvulnerability. While Practical Action does not ignore markets, reducing vulnerability is the

first strategic aim while making markets work for the poor is the second of four strategicaims.

bbThe organization notes sociopolitical trends, such as exploitative migrant labor practices

cc

and failure of agricultural extension services to reach poor farmers, when working to achievejustice. According to Schumacher, intermediate technologies supported sustainable rural

livelihoods as a part of a strategy to prevent worker exploitation.

1

Furthermore, Schumacherrecognized the modern industrial system of the developed world needed to reform towards more

sustainable practices. Practical Actions work on global policy continues to call for reforms inthe developed world. Both organizations ask designers to develop technological solutions for

people living in poverty. Therefore, both organizations can recreate power differentials betweenthe designers and the receiving community.

41, 50

E.F. Schumacher


Paul Polak

IDE

Status of marginalized

communities

Contingent on historic experiences of

injustice

Pool of rational consumers accessing new

markets

Dominant orientation Increase the voice of the marginalized Empower consumers

Community engagement

approach

Address key issues through both global

political structures and targeted

community projects

Expand capabilities of producers and

consumers by leveraging IDEs technical

expertise

When engineers work to alleviate poverty, the engineers should consider the limitations of their

community engagement strategies. Technological innovations occur within a complex system.Simple linear models fail to capture the innovation dynamics.

45Organizations fixated on one

model of community engagement can miss learning opportunities.51-53

Trade-offs exist betweencommunity participation and design expertise. However, organizations can explore different

routes to participatory design through partnering with local designers54

or developing workshopfacilitation skills.55Engineers who cannot be based full-time in communities need to be

especially thoughtful in how they engage communities. In the next section, I discuss how IDE

and Practical Action educate various audiences about life in marginalized communities.

aaPaul Polak, The Death of Appropriate Technology I: If You Cant Sell It, Dont Do It, 10 September 2010

http://blog.paulpolak.com/?p=376bb

Practical Action, Strategy, accessed 3 September 2011 http://practicalaction.org/strategycc

Alexis Morcrette, Engaging with the Elephant in the Room Nepals Exodus 22 May 2011,

http://practicalaction.org/blog/news/engaging-with-the-elephant-in-the-room-%E2%80%93-nepal%E2%80%99s-

exodus/


11/18

The Legacy of Educating OthersThe two organizations have different approaches to educating others. Polak has a living legacy

still under construction as he speaks to diverse audiences and uses many forms of media todisseminate his message. He presents IDE as an idealized approach, emphasizing various

successes. Schumacher provided a platform for people living around the world to converse about

technology. ITDG launched a global publishing platform before the internet existed. Variousmanuals contained technical exemplars for development professionals working in the field.Today Practical Action engages many diverse audiences across a number of platforms.

Polak has an active presence on three websites: IDE, D-Rev, and his personal publicity site that

advertises his book. Each site maintains a blog and employs a diverse social networking platformthrough Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube accounts. He consistently focuses his messages on

market trial, consumer choice, profit, entrepreneurship, and effectiveness. When Polak advisestechnological start-ups, he encourages teams to talk to at least 25 customers about their needs

before beginning any design.dd

Designing businesses around high volume capitalizes oneconomies of scale. Business plans set target metrics to measure a solutions viability. Honoring

people living in poverty as customers acknowledges a poor persons agency. Polak encouragesbusinesses to expand markets toward the three billion people living in extreme poverty. He

believes business growth comes from successfully engaging with poor consumers. Polaksextensive speaking circuit connects him to engineers, entrepreneurs, engineering students, and

business students around the world.

Practical Action engages many diverse audiences. Not only does Practical Action providetechnical support for communities, but also the charity engages in educational outreach about the

global nature of technology. In particular, they call attention to how technologies create anecosystem for livelihoods in both developed and developing countries. Because a considerable

portion of people in poverty work in rural subsistence livelihoods attached to specificecosystems, initiatives to recover local knowledge can play a key role in climate change

adaptation. Practical Action conducts community projects all over the globe while designingtechnologies that facilitate community adaptation. Moreover, Practical Action continually

educates policymakers on technical issuesee

and also hosts competitions for school children toengage with sustainable development.

ffConcerns about socially just forms of technology

permeate the website. Therefore, Practical Action helps marginalized communities demandgreater levels of technological justice. Working within marginalized communities can raise

questions of how to best transfer local learning to global policy change.24

The two organizations devote considerable efforts to educating wide audiences. Engineeringeducators designing service-learning programs have opportunities to build from existing

learning. Furthermore, several other organizations use different educational strategies. IDE

ddPaul Polak, Death of Appropriate Technology II: How to Design for the Market 17 September 2010.

http://blog.paulpolak.com/?p=392.ee

Practical Action presents at international forums related to technological challenges of development. See

http://practicalaction.org/events-29for past participation.ffPractical Action, STEM challenges and awards, accessed 3 September 2011 http://practicalaction.org/stem-

challenges-and-awards


12/18

focuses principally in business communities while Practical Action engages in broader politicalactivism. The table below highlights some of the differences between IDE and Practical Action.

E.F. SchumacherITDG - Practical Action

Paul PolakIDE

Vision Creating equitable technologicalsystems responsive to marginalized

communities

Developing radically affordabletechnologies for emerging customer

markets

Projects Intentional strategies to engage

chronically poor, vulnerable, orotherwise insecure households

Leveraging assets of people living in

poverty to enable greater marketparticipation both as producers and

consumers

Community

Models

Helping marginalized communities

realize rights in local, regional, andglobal political systems

Catalyzing local businesses to serve

customers living in poverty

Educational

Approaches

Diverse platforms to engage many

audiences (developmentpractitioners, policy makers, generalpublic, school children, etc)

Aggressive speaking and social media

circuit highlighting IDEs successes

As the table shows, the two organizations differ considerably. I contend the differences in

projects, community models, and educational approaches stem from the differences in vision.Schumachers vision for more equitable technological systems inspired people to look at

injustices currently present. Polaks vision for serving emerging customer markets stimulatedconversations about design practices responsive to people living in poverty. Both approaches

have value in an ever-changing world. However, engineering education researchers andengineering educators designing service-learning programs would benefit from more holistic

frames to support student learning.56

Schumacher conceived of broad changes in technological systems at a global level. PracticalAction employs strategies to partner with various community actors, realizing technical solutions

along the way. Historically, ITDG developed a range of specific tools: windmills, solar cookers,crop driers, improved latrines, cook stoves, and water storage systems to name but a few. As a

result, many people associate appropriate technology with tools incorporated with rurallivelihoods.

2Practical Action stresses pursuing globally relevant technological change.

Consequently, Practical Actions work in specific community can fade into the background.Engineers attempting to alleviate poverty should consider technological systems in particular

communities to ensure tools match strongly with context. Practical Action has started to use

more holistic wellbeing frameworks to understand communities.

gg

Polak rightly notes business plays an ever-increasing role in international development.

Businesses pursue varied strategies to integrate marginal producers in global value chains,57

harness the entrepreneurial energy found in marginalized communities to access new markets,

58

build public relations strategies around community improvement initiatives,59

and pursue holistic

ggSimon Trace. Sustainable well-being and inequality 24 June 2010

http://practicalaction.org/blog/news/sustainable-well-being-and-inequality/


13/18

business models that include social and environmental concerns.60

Various user-centered designmovements call upon engineers to engage more effectively with end users.

54, 55, 61, 62However,

Polak overstates the distinctiveness of IDEs approach. Broadly, IDEs approach mirrorsstrongly to the Gates Foundation.

44As a funding body, the Gates Foundation has much greater

influence on how organizations design projects than one relatively small non-governmental

organization. Additionally, Polak undercuts engineering design principles when he asserts thatdesigners should follow a linear, 12-step process.3Designers following Polaks approach need to

have extended presence in communities. Despite encouraging designers to have extended

community engagement, Polak relies on one-time interviews to understand the highly dynamiccontexts associated with living in poverty.63Emphasizing IDEs successes in a public arena can

block internal organization learning.

Engineering educators designing service-learning programs encounter different constraints thannon-governmental organizations. Working with students requires flexibility. Often, engineering

students have limited engagement with their universitys immediate community.64

Additionally,students encounter many barriers to travel-based immersion programs.

65Different students come

to service-learning programs with varied goals and objectives. Accommodating studentdifferences frequently requires creating a range of options. In the next section, I describe how

engineering educators designing service-learning programs can incorporate the lessons gleanedfrom Schumachers and Polaks legacies.

Practical Suggestions for Engineers Engaging with Marginalized Communities

Engineering educators can draw many lessons from the experiences of IDE and Practical Action.

In this section, I highlight four lessons and place these lessons in a broader context. These fourlessons include:

1. Build long-standingcommunity partnerships,

2. Present students with holisticmodels of poverty,

3.

Developinformed

frameworks to determine innovation success, and4.

Create case studies rooted in realengineering initiatives in marginalized communities.

Engineering educators should critically reflect on their ability to make long-standingcommitments to specific communities, taking care not to over-extend their reach. Building

community partnerships takes time and commitment. Both IDE and Practical Action have aregular and long-standing presence in communities. Some innovative service-learning programs,

such as MITs D-Lab, pull together an enduring network of designers working in globalcommunities. Other programs, such as StanfordsEntrepreneurial Design for Extreme

Affordability course, develop technologies in partnership with field organizations like IDE.Michigan Tech has combined student experience and field organizations by organizing Masters

programs around Peace Corps needs. Some service-learning programs, such as EPICS at PurdueUniversity, focus on their own communities and work with non-traditional community partners.

Additionally, universities network together to support global learning opportunities. Engineeringeducators have many options to create durable community partnerships.

Engineering educators should help students engage with the complex nature of poverty. The

legacy of Schumacher and Polak speaks to the difficulties of using a single approach whenalleviating poverty. Furthermore, the experience of IDE and Practical Action shows that


14/18

engineers often present their innovations as successes even when a design needs considerableimprovements.

28, 33, 53Engineers Without Borders-Canada

66publishes Failure Reports to foster

better understanding of the complex sociotechnical systems in marginalized communities.Engineering educators can use wellbeing frameworks

67to define poverty more broadly as the

systemic failure to achieve wellbeing objectivesand to support student design learning.56

The

framework incorporates three primary design elements. First, it focuses on the expertise that thepoor people themselves bring through their lived experiences rather than on external expertopinion ungrounded in the local context.

49Second, it illuminates the community dynamics.

37

Third, active community participation facilitates participatory design and interaction with policymakers.68Practical Action has begun to shift towards using wellbeing frameworks.

Although Practical Action advocates using wellbeing frameworks, these frameworks from social

sciences have not been strongly integrated with technical design. Engineering educationresearchers should use wellbeing frameworks when evaluating innovations to bridge knowledge

gaps. These evaluations should consider how poverty, risk, and participation affect innovationsystems. Interconnected global crises invite scholars to move beyond disciplinary silos, working

to forge new collaborative institutions.

21, 69

While businesses and entrepreneurship play a keyrole in innovating for poverty reduction,60, 65, 70, 71

engineers have a substantial role in shaping

policy and supporting social movements.72-75Preparing engineers to design for wellbeingrequires a broad view of a communitys needs.

76, 77Engineering education researchers should use

the wellbeing frameworks to develop new innovation evaluation strategies.

Engineering educators should use the field experiences of organizations like IDE and PracticalAction to design simulated learning experiences that incorporate concerns of marginalized

communities. Traditional poverty alleviation design challenges focus on creating solutions toproblems that differentially affect people living in poverty. Five of the fourteen Grand

Challenges78

of Engineeringmake solar energy economical, provide access to clean water,

restore and improve urban infrastructure, manage the nitrogen cycle, and advance personalizedlearninghave particular relevance to alleviating poverty. Innovative engineering educatorshave suggested that design for large-scale social issues brings together technical prototyping

skills and professional engineering ethics.9, 79, 80Simulating design in marginalized communitiesallows educators to affirm pro-active choices around the social and technological trade-offs that

minimize adverse effects.6Engineering educators can also invite students to critique innovation

models of organizations like IDE and Practical Action. Through simulation, students can learn

how to identify problems faced by a community.44, 79

Furthermore, students can assess impacts ofinnovations in particular communities.

28Students who develop and critique community

engagement strategies in simulated learning environments may have greater opportunity to

reflect on their own field experiences. Lastly, educators analyzing the field experiences oforganizations such as IDE and Practical Action can analyze field experiences of their own global

service-learning programs.

Conclusion

In this paper, I have explored the legacy of E.F. Schumacher and Paul Polak on engineeringpractices in developing countries. Both men founded organizations that have created technical

solutions in developing countries for decades. Practical Action strives for socially justtechnological systems that highlight the interconnected nature of the developed and developing


15/18

world. The charity continues to raise awareness of how our current industrial systems exploitfossil fuels, test the tolerance limits of nature, and deny human dignity. IDE strives to include

customers left out of traditional business models. The organization works to fosterentrepreneurship and catalyze existing business activities.

The engineering practices of these two organizations raise questions of who benefits from theinnovations. IDEs customers generally have considerably more assets than Practical Actionsclients. Effectively engaging chronically poor, vulnerable or otherwise insecure households

requires systematic approaches to enable participation. Practical Action partners with communityorganizations and other development organizations to work in some of the most marginalized

communities. The two organizations use different approaches. IDE uses a market-led approach,developing products for smallholder farmers living at an income-based poverty line and

catalyzing existing businesses that serve people living in poverty. Practical Action uses asociopolitical approach, engaging with everything from international negotiations to village

councils. Additionally, Practical Action develops a range of community level technologies tohelp marginalized communities achieve their development goals.

Engineers designing for poverty alleviation need to consider how innovations affect

communities. Dynamics of innovation systems shift community structures. Design organizationsuse indicators that match their model of a community. If an organization sees a community as a

consumer market, the organization tracks traditional business metrics such as profits andcustomer satisfaction. If an organization sees a community as an ecosystem, the organization

tracks more holistic indicators. Furthermore, different community models can lead to animositybetween approaches.

Engineering educators can use field experiences from organizations like IDE and PracticalAction to engage students with pro-poor design. Defining poverty as the systematic failure to

achieve wellbeing objectivesprovides a strong framework to compare different organizationalapproaches and to support student learning. When constructing global service-learning programs,

engineering educators should explore long-term connections with specific communities andintegrate pro-poor design into classroom learning. Engineering education researchers can support

pro-poor design by developing innovation frameworks that incorporate poverty, vulnerability,and participation. In an increasingly connected world, training engineers in pro-poor innovation

teaches engineering design that can promote responsible wellbeing on a global level.

1. Schumacher EF. Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered. London: Vintage; 1973.

2. Willoughby KW. Technology Choice: A Critique of the Appropriate Technology Movement. London:

Intermediate Technology Publications; 1990.

3. Polak P. Out of poverty: What works when traditional approaches fail. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-

Koehler; 2008.

4. The Future Corporation. Denver: TEDxMileHigh;2010.

5. Cooper-Hewitt. Design for the Other 90%. 2011;

http://archive.cooperhewitt.org/other90/other90.cooperhewitt.org/. Accessed 27 December, 2011.

6. Baillie C. Engineers within a local and global society. Synthesis Lectures on Engineering, Technology and

Society. 2006;2.


16/18

7. Bhatia S, Smith JL. Bridging the gap between engineering and the global world: A case study of the

coconut (coir) fiber industry in Kerala, India. Synthesis Lectures on Engineering, Technology and Society.

2008;6.

8. Reader J. Globalization, Engineering, and Creativity. Synthesis Lectures on Engineering, Technology and

Society. 2006;3.

9. Vanasupa L, Slivovsky L, Chen KC. Global challenges as inspirtation: A classrom strategy to foster social

responsibility. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2006;12:373-380.

10. Riley D. Engineering and social justice. Synthesis Lectures on Engineering, Technology and Society.

2008;7.

11. National Academy of Engineering. Changing the Conversation. Washington, DC: National Academies

Press; 2008.

12. Nye DE. Technology matters: Questions to live with. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2006.

13. Eglash R. Appropriating technology: An introduction. In: Eglash R, ed.Appropriating technology:

vernacular science and social power. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota; 2004.

14. Hughes TP.Human-Built World: How to Think about Technology and Culture. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press; 2004.

15. Pfaffenberger B. Social Anthropology of Technology.Annual Review of Anthropology. 1992;21:491-516.

16. Schot J, de la Bruheze AA. The Mediated Design of Products, Consumption, and Consumers in the

Twentieth Century. In: Oudshoorn N, Pinch T, eds.How Users Matter: The Co-Construction of Users and

Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2003:229-246.

17. Pinch T, Bijker WE. The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and

the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other. Social Studies of Science. 1984;14(3):399-441.

18. Highmore B. A Sideboard Manifesto: Design Culture in an Artifical World. In: Highmore B, ed. The

Design Culture Reader (2009). London: Routledge; 2009:1-12.

19. Lindsay C. From the Shadows: Users as Designers, Producers, Marketers, Distributors, and Technical

Support. In: Oudshoorn N, Pinch T, eds. How Users Matter: The Co-Construction of Users and

Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2003:29-50.

20. Klein HK, Kleinman DL. The Social Construction of Technology: Structural Considerations. Science,

Technology, and Human Values. 2002;27(1):28-52.

21. Woodhill J. Capacities for Institutional Innovation: A Complexity Perspective.IDS Bulletin.

2010;41(3):47-59.

22. Bartel CA, Garud R. The Role of Narratives in Sustaining Organizational Innovation. Organization

Science. 2009;20(1):107-117.

23. Doolin B. Narratives of Change: Discourse, Technology and Organization. Organization. 2003;10(4):751-770.

24. Oswald K, Taylor P. A Learning Approach to Monitoring and Evaluation.IDS Bulletin. 2010;41(6):114-

120.

25. Mautner G. Time to get wired: Using web-based corpora in critical discourse analysis.Discourse and

Society. 2005;16(6):809-828.

26. Scollon R, LeVine P. Multimodal discourse analysis as the confluence of discourse and technology. In:

Levine P, Scollon R, eds.Discourse and technology: multimodal discourse analysis. Washington DC:

Georgetown University Press; 2004:1-6.

27. Coleman EG. Ethnographic Approaches to Digital Media.Annual Review of Anthropology. 2010;39:487-

505.

28. Crewe E, Harrison E. Whose development?: an ethnography of aid. London: Zed Books; 1998.

29. Parker I. Introduction: varieties of discourse and analysis. In: Parker I, Bolton Discourse Network, eds.

Critical Textwork: An Introduction to Varieties of Discourse and Analysis. Buckingham: Open UniversityPress; 1999:1-12.

30. Gerring J, Thomas C. Internal Validity: Process Tracing. In: Gerring J, ed. Case Study Research: Principles

and Practices. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2007.

31. Collier D. Understanding Process Tracing. PS: Political Science and Politics. 2011;44(4):823-830.

32. Goertz G, Mahoney J. A Tale of Two Cultures: Causal Mechanisms and Process Tracing. Qualitative and

Mixed Methods Newsletter. 2010;8(2):24-30.

33. Chambers R.Ideas for Development. London: Earthscan; 2005.

34. Practical Action. Practical Action: Our Story. Rugby: Practical Action; 2010.


17/18

35. Practical Action. People and Technology: Transforming Lives, Practical Action Group Strategy 2007-2012. Rugby: Practical Action; 2007.

36. Ellis F.Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.37. White S, Ellison M. Wellbeing, livelihoods and resources in social practice. In: Gough I, McGregor JA,

eds. Wellbeing in developing countries: From theory to research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;2007:157-175.

38. Chambers R. Editorial Introduction: Vulnerability, coping and policy.IDS Bulletin. 1989;20(2):1-7.39. Moser CON. The Asset Vulnerability Framework: Reassessing Urban Poverty Reduction Strategies. World

Development. 1998;26(1):1-19.40. Rogers E.Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.41. Cornwall A. Beneficiary, consumer, citizen: Perspectives on participation for poverty reduction. Sida

Studies. 2000;2.42. Platteau J-P. Monitoring elite capture in community-driven development.Development and Change.

2004;35(2):223-246.

43. Sen A. Choice of Techniques: An Aspect of the Theory of Planned Economic Development. 3rd ed. Oxford:Basil Blackwell; 1972.

44. Sabates-Wheeler R, Butters S, Greeley M. Context-specific and Project-induced Risk: Designing Projects

for Promoting Resilient Livelihoods.IDS Bulletin. 2010;41(6):96-104.45. Millstone E, Van Zwanenberg P, Marshall F. Monitoring and Evaluating Agricultural Science and

Technology Projects: Theories, Practices and Problems.IDS Bulletin. 2010;41(6):75-87.

46. Mowles C, Stacey R, Griffin D. What contribution can insights from the complexity sciences make to the

theory and practice of development management?Journal of International Development. 2008;20(6):804-820.

47. International Development Enterprises. Toolkit for Developing and Implementing Poverty Reductionthrough Irrigation and Smallholder Markets (PRISM) Programs.Lakewood, CO: IDE;2007.

48. Collins D, Morduch J, Rutherford S, Ruthven O. Portfolios of the Poor: How the World's Poor Live on $2a Day. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2009.

49. Narayan D, Chambers R, Shah MK, Petesch P. Voices of the Poor: Crying out for Change.Vol 2. WorldBank: Washington, DC; 2001.

50. Hickey S, Mohan G. Towards participation as transformation: critical themes and challenges. In: Hickey S,

Mohan G, eds. Participation: from tyranny to transformation? Exploring new approaches to participationin development. London: Zed Books; 2004:3-24.

51. Chambers R.Rural Development: Putting the Last First. London: Longman; 1983.

52. Chambers R. Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. Warwickshire, England: ITDG; 1997.53. Chambers R.Revolutions in Development Inquiry. London: EarthScan; 2008.

54. Dearden A, Rizvi H. Participatory IT Design and Participatory Development: A comparative review. Paper

presented at: Participatory Design Conference2008; Indiana University.

55. Luck R. Learning to talk to users in participatory design situations.Design Studies. 2007;28(3):217-242.56. Nelson L. Scaffolding Undergraduate Engineering Education wtih the Wellbeing Framework.American

Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exhbition.Vol San Antonio, TX2012.

57. Humphrey J, Navas-Aleman L. Value chains, donor interventions and poverty reduction: A review of donor

practice.IDS Research Report. 2010;2010(63).58. Prahalad CK. The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: Eradicating poverty through profits. Revised and

Updated 5th Anniversary ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education; 2009.

59. Christian Aid.Behind the Mask: The Real Face of Corporate Social Responsibility. London: Christian Aid;2004.

60. Hart SL. Capitalism at the Crossroads: Aligning Business, Earth, and Humanity. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Wharton School Publishing; 2007.

61. Oudshoorn N, Pinch T, eds.How Users Matter: The Co-Construction of Users and Technology.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2003.

62. Berdou E.Mediating Voices and Communicating Realities: Using information crowdsourcing tools, opendata initiatives and digital media to support and protect the vulnerable and marginalised. Brighton2011.

63. McNeil Jr DG. An Entrepreneur Creating Chances at a Better Life.New York Times.26 Sept 2011,2011;Science.


18/18

64. VanderSteen J.Humanitarian Engineering in the Engineering Curriculum. Kingston, Canada: Civil

Engineering, Queen's University 2008.

65. Mehta K, Brannon ML, Zappe S, Colledge T, Zhao Y. eplum Model of Student Engagement: Expanding

non-travel based global awareness, multi-disciplinary teamwork and entrepreneurial mindset development.

Paper presented at: ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition; 20-23 June, 2010; Louisville, KY.

66. Engineers Without Borders-Canada. Failure Reports. 2012;

http://legacy.ewb.ca/en/whoweare/accountable/failure.html. Accessed 9 Mar, 2012.

67. Gough I, McGregor JA, eds. Wellbeing in Developing Countries: From Theory to Research. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press; 2007.

68. Wellbeing in Developing Countries. Country Reports: Bangladesh, Ethopia, Peru and Thailand. 2007;

http://www.welldev.org.uk/research/country-reports.html. Accessed 24 April, 2011.

69. Hossain N. Beyond Silos: Complex Global Shocks and the New Challenges for Civil Society.IDS Bulletin.

2011;42(5):68-73.

70. Mehta K, Morais DB, Zhao Y, Brannon ML, Zappe S. Milking the Rhino - Innovative Solutions Showcase:

Promoting Ethics Education, User-Centered Design and Social Entrepreneurship in the Global Context.

Paper presented at: ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition; 26-29 June, 2011; Vancover, BC.

71. Yunus M. Creating a World Without Poverty: Social Business and the Future of Capitalism. New York:

Public Affairs; 2007.

72. Edwards M. Small change: Why business won't save the world. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler; 2008.

73. Berdegue JA. Pro-poor Innovation Systems.Rome: IFAD;2005.

74. Leach M, Scoones I. The Slow Race: Making Technology Work for the Poor. London: Demos; 2006.

75. Wilsdon J, Wynne B, Stilgoe J. The Public Value of Science: Or How to Ensure that Science Really

Matters. London: Demos; 2005.

76. Gasper D. Conceptualising human needs and wellbeing. In: Gough I, McGregor JA, eds. Wellbeing in

developing countries: From theory to research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007:47-70.

77. White S.Analyzing Wellbeing: A Framework for Development Practice.Bath: University of Bath;2009.

78. National Academy of Engineering. Grand Challenges for Engineering. 2011;

http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/. Accessed 16 April, 2011.

79. Kilgore D, Atman CJ, Yasuhara K, Barker T, Morozov A. Considering context: A study of first-year

engineering students.Journal of Engineering Education. 2007;96(4):321-334.

80. Riley D. Employing liberative pedagogies in engineering education.Journal of Women and Minorities in

Science and Engineering. 2003;9(2):137-158.

See Targeting

Documents

Transcript of See Targeting